My team of IT professionals and editors inform me the easiest way to fix my botched Edgewater post from this morning was to just start a new post, so this is the continuation of what is now part one of the report and comment on last night’s “neighborhood meeting” on the Edgewater.
CONTINUATION OF HAMMES PRESENTATION
Here’s the issues Dunn currently sees as being the issues by the people who oppose the project, but first he notes that “large complicated projects” are difficult, can’t satisfy everyone’s concerns.
1. Land use/PUD zoning He shows his map of all the PUDs approved in the last 10 years and makes the snide remark he often does about that one time someone called this the Wild West of Zoning and says that is not what this is.
Comment: I told you I’ve lost my patience with listening to him. And I wonder who said that and why he thinks it is so significant that he keeps repeating that.
2. Precedent He shows the zoning text that he thinks makes would make it difficult for others to violate all the planning, zoning and neighborhood goals and and laws.
Bulk Contingency: The bulk standards for the Project shall be established based on provisions outlined in this Zoning Text. So as to specifically restrict the Project from setting a precedent for development in the City of Madison, the Project shall be required to meet the following conditions in order to receive approval for the Bulk Standards outlined herein:
1. The Project shall be located on a lot or collective lots of not less than 1.0 acre;
2. The Project shall have vehicular access directly onto, or across a private drive, to at least one (1) street with a right-of-way width of not less than 80 feet;
3. There shall be not less than 15,000 square feet of open space in the Project;
4. Public access to said open space shall be granted in accordance with an agreement(s) with the City of Madison;
5. As a development along the waterfront, a path of public access across the Project Area to the waterfront shall be constructed and maintained as part of the Project in accordance with an agreement(s) with the City of Madison;
6. As a waterfront development, the Project shall include the construction and maintenance of a public walkway of not less than six (6) feet in depth parallel to the waterfront. Said walkway shall connect to any adjacent waterfront walkways to the extent such walkways exist at the time of said development.
Then, he says he got an email from Jason Tish from the Madison Trust for Historic Preservation that says:
This language is a good way to prevent a future project from pointing to this project and saying “the Edgewater project did this, so we should be allowed to do it as well.” It certainly avoids establishing a legal precedent, and would provide something to point to in this PUD that prevents it from being used ostensibly as a precedent.
What he left out was that the rest of the e-mail goes on to say:
But [emphasis added] future projects that propose to build out-of-scale buildings in our historic districts would need to point to the Edgewater project specifically as a precedent, and then someone would need to recall that this language is in the PUD, in order for the language to be effective.
Our concern is the precedent it establishes for the integrity of historic district ordinances in our city. Not a legal precedent per se, but a precedent in the minds of property developers who may have ideas about building in historic districts. Allowing density, which is a good idea for other areas of the city, to creep into Historic Districts despite ordinances designed to maintain scale is where we need to draw our line.
3. Waterfront. He says that he can “come back and talk about it in response to a question”. Says they had to build closer to water because took floors off 70s building and had to move the ballroom to the new tower so they had to push closer to the lake to fit it all in. He says the current building is 16.5 feet from the lakeshore and the cantilever hangs out over the edge and is only 8 feet from the water. He tries to explain his disagreement with the city over how they measure the setback.
4. Wisconsin Ave setback. He says he “can respond in question” and that is his trying to get through his presentation quickly.
5. Building height. He says he took three stories off the tower from where he started. Feels like he doesn’t get any credit for reducing the 70s building to improve the view, but that is why he needs the height in the tower.
6. Public space. He says he’d be “happy to come back” to this. He talks about how much better it will be than what is currently there and says the space is comparable in size to the Memorial Union.
7. Traffic and parking. He says he’d be “happy to come back to” this. He says that from stand point of design and engineering we are not near capacity at Wisconsin Avenue and Langdon.
8. Design of new tower. He says he is working to respond to UDC, simplify the building, worked hard to be traditional, consistent with character of neighborhood, they asked us to look at something more simplified, grounded with the site and iconic on the waterfront. They are studying that now and they “can come back” to this issue.
Comment: It occurs to me, I’ve been doing a lot of laughing and giggling during meetings this week. Some of this has become so absurd, its about all one can do. But I stop to think about it, it makes my heart ache. Its a pretty sobering thought to see what is happening to this city because of this project. Friends are wondering what their friends are doing on the other side of the project and questioning their motives, we have ethics violations, unprecedented lobbying going on (that’s another post I still don’t have done!), long standing city processes and staff are being challenged, laws are being ignored or changed to avoid the process we would normally go through, TIF money is cavalierly being tossed around and the community is being divided. And I have to wonder, for what? When this is all said and done, whether it passes or not, where will be as a community?
Comment: Funny how he spent so much time making his points with the process and then when it came to the issues, which we were ostensibly there to discuss, he glossed over them.
With that, he is done and the room, erupts in the first applause of the night.
BREAK
Funny story for ya: During the break, Cliff Fisher is getting interviewed by Channel 3 about two he thinks the TIF is inappropriate.
I was kind of listening to what he had to say and he stops and he says Brenda and I butt heads a lot, but “she’s on the ball” on the issue of TIF. Afterwards, he comes by, we smile and shake hands. I think that might be the first civil interaction we’ve had in a year.
Comment: Ok, people used to rib me about how Fred Mohs and I are on the same side on the issue. Now we can add Cliff Fisher to the list . . . should I be worried? If its any consolation, Erik Minton is still on the other side of the issue. But we walked in together and also had a nice pleasant exchange. 🙂 In all seriousness, I really wish we could stick to the issues, not the personalities, because this project if FULL of them and the more we can do to get away from that tendency, the easier it will be to try to resolve the issues surrounding this project.
Note: Look at the clock, Dunn must have only talked for 25 minutes and the break must have been longer. Or the clock on the wall was different than my computer.
Quite a few people left at the break.
“QUESTIONS”
This is where it all broke down. The said that they were going to spend 3 minutes on each question and that there was a panel of people who could respond. Brad Murphy, Gene Devitt, Ledell Zellers did answer some questions, but it mostly did become the “Bob and Fred Show”.
Also, the questions weren’t limited to the neighborhood participants, so hired lobbyists for the developer and others, some who might not have lived in the city were able to ask questions. It gave it a real staged feel.
I’m just going to hit the highlights here:
– A person asked how many PUDs were in the downtown.
Murphy: Didn’t have an answer.
Zellers: Added some information.
– Someone asked how it will impact the water quality.
Bob: During construction its a big deal, in the end it will be better.
Fred: Change to ordinance is a major change for the city and will lead to buildings being built closer and closer to lake which has an impact. This looks hypocritical when we tell others outside of Madison that they need to modify their behavior to increase the quality of the lakes.
– Question about precedents being set and our vision for downtown.
Murphy: “Absolutely” precedents are being set. Says it is probably a rhetorical question, but important, projects like this if approved and built will be looked at
as they relate to other buildings built in close proximity. We have comprehensive plan for the city that was adopted in 2006 and that is our vision. That plan recommended further refinement for downtown and we have been working on that for 1.5 years and that will be the vision for downtown.
Devitt: says all recent development (Quisling and Scott Lewis Building on Dayton) have complied with the 50 foot rule.
– Someone outside the neighborhood asked about building the Hotel on the NGL site.
Bob: Hypocritical to be concerned about waterfront set back and then say the building should be built into the hillside because it will have a much bigger impact on the water quality. They studied it and he lists the issues as being it will cost him more for the land, it will cost him more to do the earth retention and the building will have more volume because you can’t have double loaded corridors (rooms on both sides of the hallway). Oh, and it will cost the city approximately $25M more in TIF.
– A lobbyist for the Mendota Court project asks about alternative designs for the building.
Fred: He says if Frank Lloyd Wright could design it it would be more sensitive to the topography. And he dead pans, and the roof would leak. He then talks about how the other buildings on Wisconsin Avenue have 10 – 18 foot setbacks from the right of way, Edgewater is 0. The project doesn’t have enough room for cars.
– One of the many lobbyists for the Edgewater Micheal Christopher and another person say they live in a historic district and they are wondering how this will impact them?
Murphy: Hard to answer. This project is unique, proposed as PUD approval will be specific to this parcel of land, precedent language will not apply to other parcels. This project will be referred to by developers who want to build projects in close proximity, if I wanted to build on remainder of the NGL site, “that is what I would do”. Whether it is precedent depends on future Plan Commissions and Common Councils and how they vote.
Zellers: Says there are 5 local hist dist, 4 have “visually related” language in their ordinances. If “visually realated test” is seen as not applying or over-ridden it would have a precedent.
Bob: He’ll put it in perspective for us. Use example of Hilton, says that is a 13 story building in close proximity to 4 of our most important landmarks in the city. If precedent was the dominant issue that determines what we approve, there would be a 13 story building here. Precedent is not the only issue at play here. Refers back to his language in his PUD, says no other sites like this in the city and they wouldn’t be able to do the same thing because of his language.
Comment: Wow. The fundamental disagreement over factual issues is just odd. Staff say PUD language has no precedent. Dunn says it does. Who do you believe?
– A question about what the 1965 ordinance promised and what was delivered.
Murphy: Easement for stairway to lake on east side of 70s addition, required view corridor to the lake as well as access to the rooftop. That has been provided. The other things were that it said there should be a 10 foot setback for new development from the Wisconsin Avenue right of way (the imaginary street to the lake)
Bob: 14 elements to ordinance that was poorly drafted. Says they had to maintain the view to the lake and yet you can see virtually note of the lake, he is taking away that 70s building that is in the way. Stair on east side of building is “treacherous”. Says that the Council at the time passed an ordinance saying that what was built was in compliance with the 1965 ordinance. Says it is “lousy” public space. View is severely impacted. (Clapping)
Fred: Quips he was the guy who negotiated the poorly written ordinance to much laughter in the room. [Fred’s using a little humor tonight.] Says Hilton is zoned commercial and not in a historic district. Says they got ripped off on the 1965 ordinance (other side starts clapping since that seems to be the what is expected at this point as the decorum starts to break down.) Says original Edgewater (40s building) was built without enough parking, he “foolishly” signed away right to protest to giving the street end to the Edgewater. Wife told him he’d regret it the rest of his life. 🙂 He thought signing on that the view would be maintained and the 10 foot setback would be honored. Was surprised when the building was built 9 feet higher than it was supposed to be.
– Someone asked what the DNR would allow as far as the pier.
Bob: He wants to answer the question because “last night Fred through Santa under the bus”.
Audience member yells out: Can’t we have a city official or someone answer the question?
“Facilitator”: There is no one from the DNR here. City staff can’t answer the question.
Chaos: Audience member object to Dunn answering the question and there is general discontent.
Bob: Piers are permissible, met with DNR, told to file a permit and hopes to match historic pier from years ago. It will be up to DNR if it is approved as long as it supports navigable use of the waterway.
Murphy: This will be a condition of approval to get this resolved.
– Why are we paying $16M for 6,000 square feet of public space?
Bob: It’s more than 6,000 square feet.
Audience: No its not?
Bob: What are you talking about?
Audience: Ice skating rink
Bob: That’s wrong, its the size of the Memorial Union
Audience: No its not, Ken Saiki said it was 60 x 100 feet.
Bob: No he didn’t.
Yadda . . . yadda . . . yadda . . . just lovely.
Comment: That was a bit of an exaggeration, but the person who asked the question was challenging the answer and of course he got the “you’re welcome to come to my office and sit down and discuss this with me” answer. Which usually means that they don’t want to talk about it in public.
What was useful out of the exchange was this:
Bob: It is a fair question to ask why TIF for the project. He says because
1. Creating point of access to waterfront that does not exist in the city today or anything close to it (I think I could sing along at this point)
2. Opportunity to create public space with amenities to draw people to the waterfront. Lakes bring people here, Convention and Visitors Bureau (or Chamber?) did a study. Think when you drive home, when was the last time you were on the water or waterfront.
3. This property will general real estate taxes, sales taxes, hotel taxes and the multiplier affect on the real estate tax portion alone will give the city a return on its investment in 4 to 7 years.
Benefit will continue for generations. TIF has never been used this way before, always been used for private projects.
Oh wait, we’re not done.
Audience: You didn’t answer the question!
Comment: Not the “when you drive home” comment. Obviously, I don’t think he was talking to the neighbors in that comment.
Comment: By this point (8:45), several people got up and left in disgust. Patience were wearing a little thin and we had passed a point where anything could be constructive and I kind of just gave up myself. However, there is two comedic moment to come . . .
– Someone asked a question about delivery and service vehicles.
Bob: blah, blah, blah (clapping)
Fred: blah, blah, blah
– Question about how this will help with economic development.
“Facilitator” – Can Tim Cooley from the City come up and answer that.
Audience: chirp. chirp.
Comment: Note, even tho the Mayor’s guy Larry Studesville was there and he’s the guy who the Mayor needed so desperately bad to help with economic development while Mario Mendoza was gone doesn’t step up to the plate.
Bob: Looks like Tim Cooley went home (he seemed as annoyed as anyone, I think) I’ll answer that . . . blah, blah, blah . . .
– How do we get to yes.
“Facilitator” – Brad Murphy you want to answer that?
Murphy: Stays seated in his chair and nods his head no.
No one volunteers . . .
“Facilitator” – Perhaps you could talk about porcess?
Murphy: (Reluctantly) Repeats the process and says that is not a great answer. He says we typically hope everyone work together to end up with project supported by all stakeholders and we’re quite a ways away from that point. That requires a whole heck of a lot more effort than we have seen to date to resolve issues for stakeholders that expressed concerns about project.
– Can anyone from the public have a wedding there with a private caterer.
Bob: Yes.
Comment: Note, he didn’t elaborate, me thinks the devil may be in the details here.
– How do we make sure they don’t build more than they were supposed to (Union Transfer Building, Edgewater 70’s building, etc.)
Murphy: Talks about how projects are approved with conditions and you can’t get the permits until those conditions are met and once they are met, those documents are recorded and the inspectors check to make sure that is what gets built. On a project like this they could ask for proof of financing or approval of construction contracts before permits are issued.
GAME OVER
“Facilitor” – It’s 9:00 we have to go. Still many questions, but we want to respect your time. Encourages people to submit written comments.
TEETH KNASHING
People hung out in groups for quite a while discussing how useless the evening was, from both points of view, those supporting and those opposing the project. Several wondered what the point of the meeting was and how we fix this mess. Can’t say I have the answers, but I do have some thoughts that need to jell a little bit . . .
